Does the Bible get it wrong about gossip?
An Brief Analysis of the Nature of Gossip (October 2024)
Romans 1:29 (NIV) - ‘They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,’
2 Corinthians 12:20 (NIV) - ‘For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.’
Gossip in the Church is said to be a bad thing, and we can assume from the above that gossip was defined as hurtful communication about other people. However, I was surprised to find out that the word only appears in these two places in the New Testament, and only in Proverbs in the Old Testament (NIV). Read what you will into that.
As is often the case, definitions change over time. Most dictionaries now define gossip simply as any kind of talk about other people who are not present. No, the Apostle Paul was not wrong; he just had a different dictionary. Or, more likely, the scripture translators did.
I would guess that most people’s usage of the word does not agree with these dictionary definitions either, and focus mainly on the negative aspects of gossip. However, since the dictionary definition of gossip is a huge part of church life, it may be useful to examine this issue in a little more depth.
In a 2019 meta-analysis published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science1, the authors found that, of the 52 minutes a day on average research subjects spent gossiping, three-quarters of that gossip was actually neutral; just 15% of conversations analyzed was deemed negative gossip. Positive gossip amounted to only 9%.
Let’s think up an example of this. If you are told at church that Paula went to the hospital yesterday, that likely would be neutral gossip. If it is said that she went because she signed up to be a volunteer, that would be positive gossip. If it is said that she went because she’s a hypochondriac who thinks sniffles are a sign of a life-threatening disease, that would be negative gossip.
I wonder, though, how it would be classified if it was said she went to the hospital for cancer treatment. It’s merely a statement of fact, and assuredly not a comment intended to speak poorly of her. Yet, it may be an invasion of her privacy if she did not give permission for it to be shared. I think this may be the grey-zone of gossip, one which tries to focus on ‘intent’ as opposed to ‘content’ of gossip. This is dangerous ground because you are left to make assumptions. After all, passive aggressive people are renown for masquerading poisonous information as comments of concern.
Let’s focus on negative gossip, however you wish to define it. Most churches frown on this, but in my experience its presence is not commented on all that often. After all, saying a person is a gossip is actually gossip. (My head is spinning!) A huge issue in dealing with such a subject in church or any other gathering is that negative gossip is fundamental to how people communicate; so much so that many researchers believe it serves a necessary purpose.
From the first day that two prehistoric homo sapiens decided to get together to hunt an antelope, humans have relied heavily on social cohesion as a means to success. That can’t be done without talking about people, even when they are not present. So why say bad stuff about others? Ask yourself if society is harmed by people saying bad things about politicians and police saying bad things about criminals. Bad behaviour has to be communicated or it will run amok.
Is there research on such issues? Of course there is1.
Gossip has been theorized as a feature of cultural learning by teaching people what is and is not socially acceptable. Negative gossip warns off others who are engaged in or contemplate similar actions. Also, when such gossip gets back to the person being talked about, it serves as an indirect warning to do better.
There appears to be a physiological benefit to negative gossip. Heart rates increase when someone hears about another person's bad behaviour, but lowers when they are able to talk about it. Thus negative gossip had a soothing, stress-relieving effect.
A study found that when members of a group learned and talked about another member’s bad behaviour, they remedied the problem by expelling the person, thus making their group more harmonious and effective.
Negative gossip creates an intimacy among people, and thus facilitates bonding and closeness, and serves as entertainment.
So, negative gossip is about setting down unwritten rules, policing bad behaviour, socializing and bonding, and entertainment. When you put it that way, what’s not to love? Well, how about: creating schisms, promoting hatred and distrust, losing congregants, heavy-handed remediation of bad behaviour and, well, general lawlessness.
Consider this in the context of the Church. The key in my mind is to address the positive attributes of negative gossip with better alternatives. Think about the threatening phrase: “Take care of this issue or we will!” Maybe churches need to more formally set down the rules, and police and remediate bad behaviour (in and outside of church), all while using systems based on privacy, fairness and love.
Entertainment? Have a movie night, darn it!
_______________________
1. Time.com, The Science Behind Why People Gossip—And When It Can Be a Good Thing, September 25, 2019, https://time.com/5680457/why-do-people-gossip/